LAWS(MAD)-2008-4-7

P VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. SHANMUGAM

Decided On April 29, 2008
P. VIJAYAKUMAR Appellant
V/S
SHANMUGAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court) Chennai, made in M.C.O.P. No: 5632 of 1991 dated 27.02.2002 by the claimant for enhancement of compensation for an award of Rs.3,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-.

(2.) THE Tribunal had examined two witnesses on the side of the claimant and admitted exhibits P.1 to P.9. After a full fledged enquiry the Tribunal had come to the conclusion of awarding a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- only against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-. THE claimant, who is the appellant herein, had preferred this appeal against the said order, for enhancement of compensation. THE respondent did not prefer any separate appeal nor filed a cross objection in this appeal and, therefore, the scope for consideration in this appeal is only as to whether the claimant is entitled to an enhancement of compensation as claimed by him.

(3.) THE Tribunal had ascertained the age of the deceased at 38 on the basis of the evidence and had fixed the multiplier at 15 and calculated the compensation payable to the loss of the deceased to the claimant at a sum of Rs.2,88,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit in his argument that the said fixation of multiplier at 15 is contrary to the judgment of our Supreme Court reported in 2007 A.C.J. 1076 (Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation vs. Sripriya and others) in which a driver of the State Transport Corporation who was aged about 37 years was given a multiplier of 12 by the Apex Court and therefore, in this case also the same multiplier should be used. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2007 ACJ 1972 (Kanhaiyalal Kataria and others vs. Mukul Chaturvedi and others), would submit in his argument that the Tribunal ought to have adopted the multiplier 16 as per the guidelines of the Second Schedule of THE Motor Vehicles Act. However, it had taken only 15 as the multiplier.